[For readers of Blends list: We are discussing an additional field in debian/upstream/metadata ]
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:12:46PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: > Our plans are to offer reference to > * the bio.tools registry (obviously) > * the SeqWiki (since this community feeds the bio.tools and for now we > would start upload to bio.tools what is not coming from the SeqWiki) > > The debian/upstream/metadata file would then for bowtie see the > additional lines > > Registry: > Name: bio.tools > Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1 > Registry: > Name: SEQwiki > Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie Just for the Syntax: This should rather be Registry: - Name: bio.tools Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1 - Name: SEQwiki Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie This would ensure that we have only one Registry field which might contain a set of values. > The bio.tools registry has the obvious problem that the version should > not be passed along. Fixable, one tends to think. ... fixable at bio.tools side you mean, right? > The motivation for a package maintainer to add those references could be > * better visibility, i.e. hope for a reverse link, so the own work is > found more quickly, at least for the bio.tools this is coming > * the references may guide users to additional information on how to > include the package in their workflow Please note: Adding these values to upstream/metadata does not make things user visible automatically. We need to patch tasks pages / other things to let the data show up. > If there is no opposition to add such references, then we may go ahead > with a few today. I'm CCing Blends list to get further input for the idea. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
